199 Conn.App. 39
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Romero was on probation with a standard search-condition: he must "submit to a search of [his] person, possessions, vehicle or residence when the probation officer has a reasonable suspicion to do so." He signed and acknowledged the conditions.
- Surveillance observed Romero leave a hotel, approach a van, reach into the driver-side window, then enter the van; officers followed and stopped the van at a restaurant.
- The van driver, Rosario, was visibly shaken; officers found a needle and glassine baggies on him; Rosario admitted buying $50 of heroin. Romero had $50 and a hotel room key; he denied staying at the hotel.
- A probation officer (Granatek) and investigator (Nordstrom) went to the hotel, confirmed via the clerk that Romero was staying in the room, and conducted a warrantless search pursuant to Romero's probation search condition.
- Search of the hotel room turned up multiple indicia of drug distribution (packaging bags, scales, multiple phones, mail in Romero's name, and a container later tested positive for fentanyl/heroin/tramadol). Romero's motion to suppress was denied, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to 30 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Romero) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusionary rule should be applied under the Connecticut Constitution in a probation revocation when officers conducted a warrantless search after learning the subject was on probation | Exclusionary rule generally does not apply in probation revocations; no exception should be recognized here | An exception should apply when officers knew of probation status because deterrence of illegal searches requires it | Court did not reach a new exception: because the search was lawful under Article I, §7, exclusionary rule issue was moot and Romero's claim fails |
| Whether the warrantless search of Romero’s hotel room violated Article I, §7 of the Connecticut Constitution | The probation search condition authorized warrantless searches on reasonable suspicion and officers had reasonable suspicion here | Search violated Article I, §7 because there was no warrant, probable cause, exigency, or consent | Search was lawful: Romero’s signed search condition diminished his privacy expectation and officers possessed reasonable suspicion based on hand-to-hand conduct, Rosario’s admissions and paraphernalia, matching $50, hotel key, and clerk confirmation |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke probation given suppression arguments | Evidence (including room contraband and admissions) supported revocation | If suppression were required, evidence might be insufficient; but Romero conceded sufficiency if evidence is admissible | Court affirmed revocation; because suppression was denied, evidence sufficed and sufficiency claim need not be decided further |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probation search condition plus reasonable suspicion makes warrant unnecessary under federal Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Payne v. Robinson, 207 Conn. 565 (1988) (Connecticut Supreme Court held exclusionary rule generally did not apply to probation revocation hearings but reserved question whether it applies when officers know of probation status)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize an exclusionary-rule exception in parole revocation hearings)
- State v. Jacobs, 229 Conn. 385 (1994) (Conn. Supreme Court recognized general inapplicability of exclusionary rule to revocation hearings and distinguished warrant searches)
- State v. Moore, 112 Conn. App. 569 (2009) (Conn. App. Court applied probation search-condition + reasonable suspicion analysis to uphold warrantless residence search)